smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Oh, that arsehole! He's a creep.
Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?
- Thread starter Orphia Nay
- Start date
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Oh grow up. She's not going attract perjury charges. There are no witnesses... it would be her word against Pavlovich - and I know exactly who I find more credible... it ain't the one whose narrative about Gaiman runs directly counter to what she wrote to him.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Don't mean to pry but since you volunteered the information, does Gaiman's case (or cases) remind you of your own experience in any way?
I am thinking that even if we accept his own side of the "he-said, she-said", i.e., that it was all consensual, it still seems pretty yucky overall.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
No worries... everyone around me knows what happened - its no secret, and I have nothing to hide.
Long story short, I was accused by my narcissistic ex of assaulting her (bruises and a broken nose). She had made a complaint to the police while we were in the middle of an extended matrimonial property dispute. The cops called me and asked me to come to the local cop shop for an interview. I declined and gave them the name and phone number of my lawyer. A few days later, they came to my work and asked me to accompany them. I declined again, and told them to call my lawyer and arrange to interview me in his office.
When the interview finally happened weeks later, they gave me details of the complaint she had made, including the date on which I was alleged to have assaulted her. I laughed when they told me the date - my ex had screwed up. She didn't know that I had taken a short holiday in Australia (Canberra actually) to visit some friends. I was in Canberra from three days before until five days after she claimed she was assaulted. The cops were not happy.
Unfortunately, a number of people believed her - she's a malignant narcissist and knows how to lie and turn on the tears and shaky voice. Especially hurtful were some of the people who were mutual friends from when we were still together. They didn't believe me. But the worst aspect for me was that the lying bitch got away with it because she was never charged with making a false complaint. The whole thing was quietly dropped. I asked my lawyer if it was worth taking up a private prosecution against her (I really wanted to nail her lying arse to the cross for what she did) but he said that while he was sure she would be convicted, it would cost me truckloads of money to proceed.
I already addressed that back in an earlier post...
Gaiman's behaviour makes him a creepy, cradle-snatching scumbag IMO... but that does not make him a rapist, and the alleged victim's own words make a liar of her. Why is everyone pretending she didn't say the things to him that she clearly did say? One poster here has gone as far as saying they refuse to read the messages... i.e., they are wilfully refusing to look at the evidence. Talk about....
Last edited:
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
It is exactly what you are saying, if a "rape" is reported to the police and they chose not to prosecute it is clearly a false charge, that is the basis for your whole position here. You just don't like having that pointed out.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
But someone falsely accused of rape because the police have not charged him, at least by the standards you are showing here.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
If you think the police not passing the case to Crown Law is the only reason I think her allegation is false, then you have not been paying close enough attention.
Last edited:
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Ah yes the rest is because victims never tell there abuser what they want to hear.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You're still not paying attention.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Well, smartcooky in the What'sApp messages that you claim to have read, Neil Gaiman writes that Palmer has said she was raped and that she was "telling lots of people".
In other words, it is not only Pavlovic who “claims” she told Palmer. Gaiman “claims” she told Palmer too!
In the podcast, Scarlett clearly says she messaged her friend about it, and apparently such messages were preserved, and she also talked to Palmer, and at least two other people. Finally she went to the police. There may indeed be a good reason why she didn’t talk to more people and that is because she signed a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for finally being paid.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Also, in the exchange she says it started out “questionably”. It seems pretty clear from this that she had at least told Palmer and her friend about this.
Furthermore, her friend Misma had a boyfriend who was a student at the University of Auckland. When the professor heard about the relationship between Pavlovic and Gaiman it was then that Pavlovic took seriously the possibility that she had been abused, particularly given that Gaiman had never paid her.
Furthermore, her friend Misma had a boyfriend who was a student at the University of Auckland. When the professor heard about the relationship between Pavlovic and Gaiman it was then that Pavlovic took seriously the possibility that she had been abused, particularly given that Gaiman had never paid her.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Is this a picture of smartcooky ignoring my posts?..
I have corrected him on a number of things now that he has not acknowledged and persists in ignorantly repeating falsehoods about this case. Too bad he’s hard of hearing. Is he also hard of reading too?
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
And you are ducking all of angrysoba's points to stick to your view based seemingly solely on the rejection of charges by the police. If that is not your main standard why are you acting like it is?
Because I clearly do not need to; the messages obviously present a rosy picture or you would not be pointing at them. I'm not pretending she didn't say these things to him. I'm fully conceding that the messages make it sound like she had a great time, nay, was gagging for it. I still don't need to read them myself. Because messages like that are not incompatible with my objections to calling her a lying golddigger at this point.Why is everyone pretending she didn't say the things to him that she clearly did say? One poster here has gone as far as saying they refuse to read the messages... i.e., they are wilfully refusing to look at the evidence. Talk about....
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
That's not considerable experience. That's one single experience. And it's not even the complete experience. Considerable experience would be a career of investigating such claims, discovering first-hand and repeatedly all the variations on how they turn out, what distinguishes true claims from false ones, weak claims from strong ones.No worries... everyone around me knows what happened - its no secret, and I have nothing to hide.
Long story short, I was accused by my narcissistic ex of assaulting her (bruises and a broken nose). She had made a complaint to the police while we were in the middle of an extended matrimonial property dispute. The cops called me and asked me to come to the local cop shop for an interview. I declined and gave them the name and phone number of my lawyer. A few days later, they came to my work and asked me to accompany them. I declined again, and told them to call my lawyer and arrange to interview me in his office.
When the interview finally happened weeks later, they gave me details of the complaint she had made, including the date on which I was alleged to have assaulted her. I laughed when they told me the date - my ex had screwed up. She didn't know that I had taken a short holiday in Australia (Canberra actually) to visit some friends. I was in Canberra from three days before until five days after she claimed she was assaulted. The cops were not happy.
Unfortunately, a number of people believed her - she's a malignant narcissist and knows how to lie and turn on the tears and shaky voice. Especially hurtful were some of the people who were mutual friends from when we were still together. They didn't believe me. But the worst aspect for me was that the lying bitch got away with it because she was never charged with making a false complaint. The whole thing was quietly dropped. I asked my lawyer if it was worth taking up a private prosecution against her (I really wanted to nail her lying arse to the cross for what she did) but he said that while he was sure she would be convicted, it would cost me truckloads of money to proceed.
I already addressed that back in an earlier post...
Gaiman's behaviour makes him a creepy, cradle-snatching scumbag IMO... but that does not make him a rapist, and the alleged victim's own words make a liar of her. Why is everyone pretending she didn't say the things to him that she clearly did say? One poster here has gone as far as saying they refuse to read the messages... i.e., they are wilfully refusing to look at the evidence. Talk about....
You were falsely accused, and now you're looking at every such claim through the lens of your singular experience. As if it's the correct or only lens.
If you'd been assaulted once, and everyone accused you of making false accusations, you'd be here insisting that in your "considerable experience" these women must all be telling the truth, because that's what happened to you. And you'd be just as wrong in your reasoning as you are right now.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
It was ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ considerable to me
In any case, everyone sees life through the lens of their own experiences, you included. And if you thing this one experience is the only thing I am basing my assessment on, then you haven't been paying attention either .
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Her statements in her lawsuit directly contract what she says in her messages to him. (see posts #279, #308 and #324)
I have PMed you
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
That's not how considerable experience works.
You're the one who claimed this one experience as your considerable experience.
angrysoba
Philosophile
loooooool! How is someone declaring themselves a “skeptical thinker” and then saying that their own personal lived experiences give them special insight because of how huge an impression those experiences left on them?
A skeptic is someone who would recognize that their extremely emotional connection to an issue could instead cloud their judgment and make them have a prejudiced opinion when people claim victimhood. And that certainly seems to be the case here. For what it is worth, the very term “gold digger” appears in the podcast. It turns out that some people with expertise notice in their considerable opinion that claims of being a gold digger and fears of being thought one are one of the reasons why many women do not come forward to tell their stories. This is particularly true in situations when the man is powerful and rich of course.
Besides, I have repeatedly shown that some of your “considerable experience” has let you down. You claim that Pavlovic never told friends and that there is no evidence she told Palmer. Yet Gaiman’s own words that you claim to have read contradict this.
Instead you are too busy telling everyone how you know things that nobody else does and how you are an expert in this because of your “considerable experience”.
Man, just stop this! This is Trumpian in its vainglory.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
It's pointless, he has you on ignore